TCM and Criterion have teamed up to launch a streaming service aimed at cinephiles

[bubbleboyjones]

I used to be intrigued by criterion, but it feels like they've really loosened up their standards and now have some really shitty movies.

I remember when I was into laserdisc in the early 90s it was the coolest thing to have the criterion edition of a movie. It was extremely relevant at the time since all of the things we take for granted today like letterbox, commentary tracks ..etc are pretty much standard on any movie. Plus cool extras like the trailers and audio tracks were included but a lot of these things are negated today with Youtube.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Well you're right about physical discs. I am interested in this service and I also lament the inevitable passing of physical formats. I still buy Blu-Rays regularly and I love all the supplementary content. (In fact, the wealth of special features on a disc--or lack thereof--is often THE factor on whether or not I buy it.)

what really pisses me off is that asshole Cronenberg. Both Scanners and the Brood were recently released on criterion and neither have director commentary even though DC approved the transfers...not crit's fault but just DC being a fucking dickbag who hasn't made a good movie in decades and can't even give his fans a fucking bone by doing a commentary on his movies that were fucking great.

also, would like to see Crit release Crash (cronenberg) on blu ray since they did it with laserdisc (and it has a commentary i downloaded separately)

 

[Guestx]

what really pisses me off is that asshole Cronenberg. Both Scanners and the Brood were recently released on criterion and neither have director commentary even though DC approved the transfers...not crit's fault but just DC being a fucking dickbag who hasn't made a good movie in decades and can't even give his fans a fucking bone by doing a commentary on his movies that were fucking great.

also, would like to see Crit release Crash (cronenberg) on blu ray since they did it with laserdisc (and it has a commentary i downloaded separately)

I think some directors just don't like doing commentaries.

I don't think that Tarantino has ever done one. Pretty sure neither Spielberg nor the Coens have either. Which does suck, yeah.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

I think some directors just don't like doing commentaries.

I don't think that Tarantino has ever done one. Pretty sure neither Spielberg nor the Coens have either. Which does suck, yeah.

but cronenberg used to do them for all his movies as long as they were his approved transfers and dude, he has the best commentaries--- Crash, naked lunch, dead ringers, videodrome commentaries were so fucking good
i mean he is still my favorite director and always will be, but fuck him for making shit movies since and includeing AHOV and no longer doing commentaries. He is dead to me!!!!

mucho butthurto

 

[europe1]

I don't think that Tarantino has ever done one.

He dislikes doing them for his own films (he's only done one for Resorvoir Dogs as far as I know) but he has done several for other directors movies. Five Fingers of Death, Hot Fuzz and several Rodriguez & Eli Roth films.

Coens have either

I know that they've done one for The Man Who Wasn't There.

Funnily enough, the commentary for Blood Simple is a fake-one. The guy narrating just tells a bunch of tall tales and bullshit about the filming. Like how the flies during a scene would be animatronic and such.

 

[Guestx]

but cronenberg used to do them for all his movies as long as they were his approved transfers and dude, he has the best commentaries--- Crash, naked lunch, dead ringers, videodrome commentaries were so fucking good
i mean he is still my favorite director and always will be, but fuck him for making shit movies since and includeing AHOV and no longer doing commentaries. He is dead to me!!!!

mucho butthurto

I really don't know much about Cronenberg but I tried to watch Cosmopolis when it came out. Did not like.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

I really don't know much about Cronenberg but I tried to watch Cosmopolis when it came out. Did not like.

So yes, that is a shitfest

If I was telling someone to start watching DC, I would put Videodrome first. Watch that, and if you don't like it don't bother with him. Then I would put naked lunch and dead ringers then Scanners

 

[europe1]

If I was telling someone to start watching DC, I would put Videodrome first. Watch that, and if you don't like it don't bother with him. Then I would put naked lunch and dead ringers then Scanners

Videodrome might be a tad to esoteric in it's content. It's ideas and narrative are a bit to idiosyncratic for a newly-initiated Cronenberg-viewer.

I'd recommend the The Fly (superb mixture of horror and Cronenberg's personal ticks). Or Eastern Promises/A History of Violence. Those are more easily digestible while still being splendid and containing his personal style.

Cronenberg had sort of an transitionary period in the 90's when he moved from being a genre-filmmaker into doing more drama stuff.

 

[Guestx]

Videodrome might be a tad to esoteric in it's content. It's ideas and narrative are a bit to idiosyncratic for a newly-initiated Cronenberg-viewer.

I'd recommend the The Fly (superb mixture of horror and Cronenberg's personal ticks). Or Eastern Promises/A History of Violence. Those are more easily digestible while still being splendid and containing his personal style.

Cronenberg had sort of an transitionary period in the 90's when he moved from being a genre-filmmaker into doing more drama stuff.

I have actually seen The Fly and A History of Violence. Didn't realize he did those. The Fly is good; AHOV was disappointing.

 

[europe1]

AHOV was disappointing

I was going to like this post until I read this.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Videodrome might be a tad to esoteric in it's content. It's ideas and narrative are a bit to idiosyncratic for a newly-initiated Cronenberg-viewer.

I'd recommend the The Fly (superb mixture of horror and Cronenberg's personal ticks). Or Eastern Promises/A History of Violence. Those are more easily digestible while still being splendid and containing his personal style.

Cronenberg had sort of an transitionary period in the 90's when he moved from being a genre-filmmaker into doing more drama stuff.

I have actually seen The Fly and A History of Violence. Didn't realize he did those. The Fly is good; AHOV was disappointing.

I am going to say no to AHOV and later because those are not what we consider classic cronenberg movies.
The Fly is kind of a middleground.

What Cronenberg really made a mark with and what was his halllmark was body horror.

SP, like I said, check out Videodrome... that is the litmus test. It is under 90 mins....and there is not another movie like it. It is from the early 80s and a bit about the time that cable TV started and shit.

This is from Videodrome


PS there is the CRITERION EDITION OF VIDEODROME

 

[Guestx]

I was going to like this post until I read this.

It was, bro. I remember going to the theater to see it and just left feeling let down.

 

[europe1]

What Cronenberg really made a mark with and what was his halllmark was body horror.

Yeah but I think its fair to say that the influences of body horror lives on in his later work. Cronenberg has always had a fascination with how violence impacts and affects human flesh. Nobody films gore, mutilation or carnage with the inquisitive eye that he does. The diffrence really is that in his early work he explored this through genre-pictures, bodily-distortions in fantastical settings. Recently, his eye is towards the more realistic, but the fascination with how violence and flesh realate to each other is still there.

Oh... and all the sex and nudity too of course.

 

[Fedorgasm]

AHOV was disappointing.

That staircase scene made the whole movie worth it. One of the best scenes in any movie ever.